Posted on 05/05/2005 2:16:05 PM PDT by jennyp
MARIETTA - The Cobb school board will apparently have until the end of the month to excise more than 34,000 evolution disclaimers inserted in science textbooks now that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied its request to wait on removing the stickers until the appeals court hears the case.
On Jan. 13 Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the school board's decision to post stickers that call evolution "a theory, not a fact" into school books violates the separation of church and state and had to be "immediately" removed.
After hearing a Cobb high school science supervisor complain that removing so many stickers would disrupt classroom instruction, Judge Cooper agreed to postpone the removal date to a week after school ends on May 20.
However, on Jan. 17 the school board voted 5-2, with board Chairwoman Kathie Johnstone and Laura Searcy dissenting, to appeal the case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the proviso that the board's attorneys, the Marietta law firm Brock Clay, would represent them free of charge in the appeals process.
Moreover, Brock Clay filed a motion for stay on the sticker removal order until the court of appeals heard the case. That motion was denied Tuesday by Circuit Judges Joel Dubina, Frank Hull and Charles Wilson.
Marietta attorney Michael Manely, who, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, defended the plaintiffs in district court, said that to get a stay, it has to be proven that the case is likely to succeed on its own merits.
"This showed it's not likely to prevail," Manely said. "It's the first serious nail in the coffin from the Court of Appeals. They are expressing their preliminary thoughts on the subject. This is like a preview of what is certain to come. It tells the board that this corpse is beginning to smell really bad."
Manely, who turned over the case after Judge Cooper's ruling to Atlanta attorney Jeffrey Bramlett, a past president of the Atlanta Bar who is with the firm Bondurant Mixson and Elmore, said he expects oral arguments to be heard mid summer with a possible ruling this fall.
Manely said the school board could appeal the denial of the motion for stay, but to do so would be unlikely because the decision would go before all the judges on the 11th Circuit, whose decision would strongly influence the case's outcome.
"I'm disappointed," said board member Lindsey Tippins, who said he still wanted to go forward with the appeal.
"I think we have a valid case because the district judge said he found no intent to establish religion."
Board Vice Chair Dr. Teresa Plenge also said she wanted to proceed.
"If we don't proceed, we will be turning several hundred thousand dollars of tax payer money to the ACLU in punitive damages and it's costing us nothing because we're getting legal counsel pro bono," she said.
Dr. Plenge said Cooper's opinion could hold the school board liable for legal fees and an undetermined amount for the ACLU.
Manely estimates that legal fees could top $200,000.
According to the school system, the board spent about $74,000 in legal fees in the first case. Glenn Brock, a principal in Brock Clay has estimated the appeals cost at $25,000.
Asked what she plans to do now, Dr. Plenge said, "I guess we have to take them out. They're stuck, so it's going to be messing with the inside cover of the book."
School staff has already experimented with removing the stickers, using such things as nail polish. Removing so many stickers will not be easy, she said.
"I'm going to offer to help take out the stickers," said east Cobb parent Jeffrey Selman, who filed suit against the school board in August 2001, along with the ACLU, claiming the stickers were unconstitutional.
"I bet I can get a whole bunch of people to help them," Selman said. "God bless the judges. They can see right through this sham."
The stickers were first approved in March 2002 after the board received a petition signed by more than 2,300 residents who opposed science textbooks the board was adopting due to the evolution content.
"I think this is a serious issue and I'm anxious to hear the 11th Court of Appeals decision," Dr. Plenge said. "It's an issue that has been debated across the county and I think it's important for us to get a legal decision that tells us which is the right way to go. We thought we were doing the right thing, but then we were told we weren't. I think we need to have clear boundaries for all school systems," she said.
Brock Clay attorney Linwood Gunn, who is representing the board in the case, did not respond to a request for comment, while school system spokesman Jay Dillon said he has not heard of the court's decision.
The term I used "evolutionist union" is a good description of their monopolistic cartel. The sticker is a good counterbalance to the speculations about naturalistic origins.
Oh, so Islam believes in evolution. Ridiculous.
Trying to read into the court's rejection some non-existent religious meaning or a ideological orientation is an exercise in mere ideological and reactionary knee-jerk.
For those of you who see the vast anti-religious conspiracy behind every decision with which you disagree, while it may give you some space and bandwidth to rant and vent, it is an admission that you fit the analogy of the carpenter who sees every item as a hammer.
The U.S. appellate courts (and the district courts as well) examine each case on the substantive merits and the procedural posture applicable. There ain't no black magic or preordination at work here. Looking at our courts from the keyhole of one's personal opinions of what "should" would result in exactly what Freepers shout against, namely, courts choosing up ideological side and basing decisions thereon. In our history there has indeed been some rock-headed judges like that but they're few and rare, and they're usually taken behind the woodshed by the Chief Justice--as happened several years ago with a U.S. District Judge in North Florida; he resigned.
Facts and definitions are stubborn things. If evolution does not fit the definition, then by golly we'll just have to change the definition.
I've read some of the threads today, and gotten involved in others. What happens a lot is that students will come in with something like "10 questions to ask your biology teacher", and then will disrupt the class with it. Most students that do this don't even understand the questions that they are asking.
If they really wanted answers to their questions, they could look them up on the internet. It is a waste of time for a teacher to have to deal with things that are outside the curriculum, just because some kid thinks he's smarter than everybody else, or because his religious beliefs make him feel superior.
Personally, if I was a teacher under those circumstances, I would ask the student to write down the questions, and use it to create a research assignment for everybody to have to do. I would also tell everybody who to thank for it.
Did the 11th refuse to hear, or refuse to delay an action until after the appeal? No opinion is listed on the 11th Circuit website.
Do they really believe their kids do not listen in Sunday School and need to have their religon reinforced in public school? If this is the case they have bigger problems than they can even imagine.
To which study are you referring? I read a lot of them (hobby), and your statement is incorrect. Every bit of evidence so far does support evolution. If you have a study that shows otherwise, please share it.
It wasn't Islamists that got together on the school board and voted to put the stickers in the books. It wasn't Islamists that ordered the stickers with taxpayers money and then had them placed in the books. It was Christians. period.
Those same Christians voted for the other subjects. Does that poison all of the subjects? You are even more ridiculous.
Then you know absolutely nothing about evolution (except how to spell it), absolutely nothing about creationism "science", or absolutely nothing about either. I'm going with option C.
(Personally, if I was a teacher under those circumstances, I would ask the student to write down the questions, and use it to create a research assignment for everybody to have to do. I would also tell everybody who to thank for it.)
You would make a great university professor in the current environment. You'd fit right in! Your attitude would go a long way to creating a safe environment for kids to learn and to be able to question B.S.
If teachers don't know the answers they should say so. You see, there wouldn't be anything wrong with teaching about Darwin while also mentioning some of the questions that have not been resolved yet. But, because Darwinism is like a religion with liberals, they act that the evolution theory has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. That's when they look ridiculous when asked some embarrassing questions.
I don't recall the courts rejecting anything else that they voted on. You asked what religious belief was involved in the decision to put the stickers on the books in the first place. I answered you correctly, and accurately. If you don't like the truth, do what you always do. Ignore it.
No I didn't. I asked you to name the religion that was establihed by a sticker. You then raised the red herring that Christians voted on putting a sticker in a book. That act does not establish a religion. The sticker could have said "Property of Cobb school district". Now a simple sticker does not establish a religion.
I also can ignore red herring.
Who is the diety of this religon?
There is no 'religion of evolution' for me to adhere to, and if there were, I would not do so. Your statements simply show that you know little to nothing about the subject. It is a scientific theory, not a religion. I have said it before, and I will say it again; if the theory of evolution is ever falsified, it will end up on the trash heap of failed theories, just like the 'plum pudding' model of atomic theory.
The TOE has withstood 150 years of intense scrutiny, and is still a valid theory. The likelihood of it being shown to be false is very slim. That does not mean that it cannot be shown to be false. If that were the case, then it would not be a valid scientific theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.